bongostaple » October 9th, 2016, 3:29 pm wrote:There absolutely is an appreciable lag - in both cases. At the first quarter mark, the circle path ball has travelled a quarter of a revolution of the circular path, and the straight path ball has travelled a quarter of the line from '0' to '4'. These two markers are not in any way equivalent in distance travelled. In the time the straight path ball travelled a quarter of four, or 'one diameter', the circle path ball travelled (pi * d) / 4 which works out at about 79% of the straight path first marker distance.

Conclusion: We are seeing a 21% miss.

I read your post several times more than I've watched that experiments' video, just to try and see something you continuously claim it is obvious. I really can't get a grip on your reasoning and logic, which makes it very difficult to explain complexity of observational and logical errors you've made (unconsciously or deliberately, it makes no difference). Is there actually an appreciable lag you are observing? Or could it be just the mismatch in what should have a been a simultaneous start of 2 balls? Are the inclinations of both tubes matched in at least 1/10th of degree? Since velocity loss (or should be very obvious and progressive (or gradual) and it is obviously not, a reasonable mindset would explain it otherwise. It's either : a) no velocity loss/extra friction due to curved path or b) obvious velocity loss of cca 21% progressing as the ball runs through the curve. Can I kindly ask you to accept this two versions of reality? Because it can NOT be any different, there is no 3rd option and there is no twilight-zone kind of relativity hokus-pokus.

Can you answer it directly, is it option a) or option b) ? As soon as you come to the conclusion that correct answer would be a) , we can start seriously discussing how to make the experiment better with improvements to its setup. Until then such discussion is useless, all your arguments that are based on assumption of answer b) from above, are without any value, impossible to mechanically explain and interpret by known equations.

Based on your responses to bongostaple, you are to a greater or lesser extent insinuating that those unwilling to call a circle a square (Simon, brianv, SCS, Kham, aa5, myself and likely many others) are either stupid, lazy, poor readers, time wasters, paid trolls or FUD disseminators, or any combination of the above. You even seem to have a criterion for who belongs on the forum.

Seneca » October 9th, 2016, 4:51 pm wrote:I agree that the effect of friction is gradual and cumulative while the effect that M.M. is talking about would be instantenous as soon as the ball starts its circular path. But it is hard to tell the difference in the video, maybe I am a bit lazy.

We have no way of knowing many times Steven Oostdijk had to run his experiment to get these results. Perhaps he has played with the parameters (starting height, radius of the turn..) until the result fitted the theory.

In my response to mongo, I realized that if the slow down was cumulative and uniform, and the miss was 21%, then that is actual an average miss around the circle, in which case by the 3/4 mark there should be a 31.5% delay in hitting the mark compared to the straight part. Do you see anything remotely close to a 30% delay? If you can say that Steve gamed this experiment to disguise such a miss, you could say that about any experiment I would run. I think the only way you will really be convinced is if you run the experiment yourself.

Where he could be wrong is in what you wrote earlier "When you're trying to describe movement in a circle, then the circumference is best approximated with the ever-smaller zigzag method (the orthoganal vectors or sides)."What if we look instead at a diagonal path like this: /. Can you explain why, using the same logic you shouldn't approximate the movement also by the "zigzag" method? Besides for the reason that it would make no sense in the real world.

Yes, here are two quotations from his papers that I think explain this point. First from pi2.html:

But let us start at the beginning. By definition, a velocity vector cannot curve. A velocity takes place in one dimension or direction only. In a velocity, there is only one distance in the numerator and one time in the denominator. These times and distances are also vectors, and may not curve. But to create a curve, either mathematically or physically, requires at least two velocities happening over the same interval. Or, to put it another way, it requires two distances measured over the same time interval. If we sum these velocities over the same interval, we achieve an acceleration, and thereby—assuming the two velocities are at an angle—a curve.

So your straight line is a single vector, even as it is slanted. We don't approximate it by zig-zag, because we don't have to. But we do have to approximate a curve that way, because it is composed of two vectors. He goes into more detail in that paper.

Another relevant quotation from pi.html:

Geometry dismisses time as a consideration. Geometry is understood to be taking place at a sort of imaginary instant. For instance, when we are given or shown a radius, we do not consider that it took some time to draw that radius. We do not ask if the radius was drawn at a constant velocity or if the pencil was accelerating when it was drawn. We don’t ask because we really don’t care. It doesn’t seem pertinent. It seems quite intuitive to just postulate a radius, draw it, and then begin asking questions after that. It turns out that this nonchalance is a mistake. It is a mistake because by ignoring time we have ignored many important subtleties of the problem of circular motion and of circle geometry. As a simple example of this, when we draw a circle on a Cartesian graph, we make an entirely different set of assumptions than the ones above, although few have seemed to notice this........Drawing the graph changes everything. If you draw a circle without a graph, then you can say to yourself that the line (that is now the circumference of the circle) is a length. As a length, it can have only one dimension. A length is a one-dimensional variable, right? Perhaps you can see where I am going with this, and you say, “Wait, a circle curves, so we must have two dimensions, at least. We must have an x and a y dimension.” Yes, at the least we must have that. You saw this because you began to think in terms of the Cartesian graph and you could see in your head that the curve implied both x and y dimensions. Very good. But you are not halfway there yet. Take the circle and actually put it into a Cartesian graph. What you find is that the curve is now an acceleration. In fact, any curve is an acceleration in a two-dimensional graph... That line that represents a circumference is taking on dimensions very fast now. At first we thought it was just a length. Then we saw that it required two dimensions. Now we can see that it is an acceleration. What next? Unfortunately, there is more. The Cartesian graph we have put it into to show it is an acceleration is still just an x, y graph. We still don’t have a time variable. A circle is a planar object, existing in a plane, but in the real world a curve on a plane cannot be created without time passing. A two-dimensional object requires three dimensions for its creation, just as a three-dimensional object requires four dimensions for its creation. You cannot draw or walk or describe a figure in a three-dimensional universe without taking time into consideration. Figures require motion and motion requires time.All this is clear I hope. Nothing esoteric about it, although it may be a bit shocking to be reminded of it. Many readers will think I am talking only to young or naïve people when I say that this problem has remained obscure. But I am talking to everyone, the most brilliant scientists and mathematicians included. You young readers may find it amusing to see what famous scientists still do everyday with circular motion. Here is an equation that is used everyday, right now, by the smartest people alive:

v = C/t = 2πr/t

where v is the orbital velocity, C is the circumference and t is the period of the orbit. Newton used this equation. Einstein used this equation. Feynman used this equation. Every famous person you can think of used and is still using this equation. But it is an error of gigantic proportions. First of all, we have a curved velocity, which is impossible by definition. You cannot describe a curve with a velocity. Next, look at the form. We have C in the place of x, as if C is a simple distance. I have just shown that C is not a simple distance. There is no way to express C with just an x-dimension. In fact, as I have just shown, C is three-dimensional, if you include time. This equation is including time, as you can see by the denominator. You cannot have a t in the denominator and claim you are ignoring time. You cannot put a curve over a time and have it come out to be a simple velocity. Velocity is defined as x/ t. The variable x is one-dimensional and therefore cannot curve.

So your diagonal line is one-dimensional (or two if you include time and treat it as a velocity vector). You don't need to 'approximate' or model it as a complex compound motion, not with the 'zig-zag' or any other method.

Yes, daddie_o, you are being civil to me and I appreciate you take your time to answer my questions and try to understand what I am saying. And I think you understand what I am saying.

As for your last comment to bongostaple that he is wrong, I understand that you don't mean that you are automatically right. But that you are still open for the possibility that you are both wrong.

I have to admit your last answer is beyond my comprehension. This could mean I am not intelligent enough or not spending enough time. I have no problem imagining there are people more intelligent and less lazy than me. Or it could mean that the explanation doesn't make sense.

Actually I am already lost at this simple sentence in your quote from Miles: "If you draw a circle without a graph, then you can say to yourself that the line (that is now the circumference of the circle) is a length. As a length, it can have only one dimension."

I don't see how a circle or any line can be a length (in the physical sense). For me a length is just a combination of a number and a unit of length like a centimeter. It is true that a length has one dimension. A circle can have a length but I don't see how it could be a length.

daddie_o » 09 Oct 2016, 20:32 wrote:If you can say that Steve gamed this experiment to disguise such a miss, you could say that about any experiment I would run. I think the only way you will really be convinced is if you run the experiment yourself.

Yes I thought you were going to think that and you could be right. But I have more faith in you, I liked your Gandhi paper for example. And if I saw that you had run the experiment and proven you were right, in order to keep my promise I would be motivated to run it myself. Right now I don't have enough motivation, just like you.

Seneca » October 9th, 2016, 2:41 am wrote:....To those who think that energy is needed to keep an object in a circular orbit: Can you explain where this energy is coming from, for example when the moon is orbiting the earth? I am not saying there is no force. But the force is not doing any "work" (in the physical sense). So it has no influence on the kinetic energy of the object. Because the force is always perpendicular to the movement (this is just standard physics not M.M's. In the experiment there is work being done by the friction but that is another force.

On Pages 8 & 9 of the 'What is Gravity' thread in the space hoaxes section of the forum, I asked a similar question. I came to the conclusion that for the Moon there must be both an attractive force and a repulsive force acting from the Earth/between the Earth and Moon simultaneously.

The Moon's perigee is ~362,000 km and its apogee ~404,000 km from the Earth. With the midpoint at ~384,000 km.

My speculation is that as the Moon crosses 384,000 km getting closer to the Earth, the repulsive force becomes stronger. So the momentum the Moon has at that point, which is in the direction of moving closer to the Earth, begins to be chipped away at. Until at 362,000 km the momentum towards the Earth hits zero, and then begins building up being pushed away from the Earth.

And then the opposite happens when the Moon crosses 384,000 km while being pushed away from the Earth, where the attractive force becomes stronger and starts chipping away at the momentum moving away from the Earth.

It is also a great question, where does this energy come from. We know the attractive force as gravity. And we think of it is a property of matter, although why/how this works I do not know. The repulsive force we can call anti-gravity, and it may be some property of matter too.

I'm excited to see someone else who is making logical assumptions to this extent you've come to. I was in the same process a while ago, trying to answer myself a question since the mainstream is more used to inventing forces and facts to match the data. Here enters CHARGE and charge is the re-discovered foundation that exists in the real world . Obviously or not, it is there, exhibiting force that is very subtle and elusive to acknowledge and measure. As it turns, both gravity and charge are properties of matter and they cannot exist one without another. As Mathis was developing this theory, there was absolutely no trace of charge within physics theory and consequently equations, looking at the physics as a whole, he got to the conclusion that charge was not explicitly included at all (which would be logical error since we are observing gravity and measuring it accordingly). So his mission began and I believe after all I read and thought about the charge, that it is bot logical and theoretically sound proposition. After a while I was able to comprehend it, what charge implies and how is the mechanics of its manifested force placed in the reality we live in. This is exactly what got confirmed by Mathis with data taken from the mainstream experiments and re-calculating with the charge involved - and it turned so, that Mathis is/was able to resolve many "mysteries" of modern world's physics. Many links were offered in this thread and they are waiting for any curious-minded people to look into them, there you might find the answer to why is modern physics complicated beyond recognition with just a handful of people claiming to be able to a) understand it and b) calculate anything from experimental data. Well, it may be that Mathis is actually on something extremely important and it may be that he was able to first philosophically and later on mathematically prove charge being a part of this physical world.

It turns that the Earth's Moon has greater charge value that Earth does. Isn't this fascinating to learn about? It most certainly is to me.

Based on your responses to bongostaple, you are to a greater or lesser extent insinuating that those unwilling to call a circle a square (Simon, brianv, SCS, Kham, aa5, myself and likely many others) are either stupid, lazy, poor readers, time wasters, paid trolls or FUD disseminators, or any combination of the above. You even seem to have a criterion for who belongs on the forum.

Nice going...

Just because the same value expresses both Pi in kinematic situations and the length of square's boundary it is not suggested that circles are actually squares. Nobody was suggesting that it is the same, other than in the value just mentioned. I bet you've experienced so far the joy of going in circles with your explanations and reasoning when trying to explain yourself and then soon realizing that you are "howling at the moon". Either because of the ignorance, not reading what is discussed or simply trolling just to misdirect and spend time on irrelevant or unrelated points. That is what I think daddie_o was delivering as a message to bongostaple, as not only that bongo was refuting this discussion here, he's not willing to look into the well known and established fact of centrifugal & centripetal force. How can one discuss points that are logically connected when one doesn't want to educate himself about the subject of what is being discussed ? It really is painfully frustrating and it really takes a lot of patience to keep calm and still reasonably address questions being raised by such people. That is hard to achieve, especially if you're convinced that your interlocutor (someone who takes part in a conversation, often formally or officially) is an intelligent person perfectly able to reason fundamental facts.

Can I kindly ask you to answer, why is it so hard to think about physics (or science in general) being manipulated and fudged ? Is it physics something that is excluded from manipulation, contrary to everything else being manipulated, faked and hoaxed? Could it be that we are held in the dark about the truth just as in i.e. monetary or/and political systems?

Flabbergasted » October 9th, 2016, 10:04 pm wrote: Based on your responses to bongostaple, you are to a greater or lesser extent insinuating that those unwilling to call a circle a square (Simon, brianv, SCS, Kham, aa5, myself and likely many others) are either stupid, lazy, poor readers, time wasters, paid trolls or FUD disseminators, or any combination of the above. You even seem to have a criterion for who belongs on the forum.

No, you are completely misrepresenting my position. I have insinuated no such thing. I threw down a guantlet in my comment at the bottom of page 6 of this thread: "If you're not willing to make a good faith effort to understand, I don't see why I should make a good faith effort to explain. If you really wish to understand what he has written, you should make a good faith effort to do so. Otherwise it will be clear that you are just trolling and deliberately trying to waste mine and other people's time."

And yet, I haven't seen anybody (with the possible exception of Seneca) pick up the gauntlet by reading and trying understand his argument based on what he wrote. So at this point, as announced, I assume anybody still debating without reading Miles's work is a troll, and I reserve the right to treat them as such, which is why I have heaped so much scorn on bongo. My "insinuation" extends only to people who have continued to debate this point since that post without reading his work, and I will treat them in kind.

If the topic doesn't interest you and you don't feel like reading it, I wouldn't say you're lazy. However if you insist on debating a theory but cannot be bothered to actually read it, then yes, I assume you are lazy -- and that is the most generous interpretation one can possibly make about that type of behavior. If you are not willing to read his papers to try to understand, then you should not enter into discussion on the topic. How is that such an objectionable position?

I'm not saying you have to understand his work to talk about it, but you at least have to make an effort. I will be more than happy to patiently and calmly help anybody understand his papers and answer any questions about them that I can, as long as I can see they're making a good faith effort and not just trying to waste my time. I will engage in conversation about this topic in good faith, but only as long as the other person is also making a good faith effort. And so far I haven't seen that (again, with the possible exception of Seneca).

And speaking of good faith, it's clear that you either don't understand (because you haven't tried) or are deliberately trying to distort Miles's argument about Pi. The man has written seven papers on Pi now, based on 3 foundational papers that rework calculus for use in physics (he basically re-invented what is known as the calculus of finite differences), and make corrections to core postulates of Newton and to a bedrock formula of physics. And all you can say is that his argument is "we should call circles squares"?? It's cheap and disingenuous.

If bongo insists on acting like a troll, then yes, I don't think he belongs on this forum. To repeat, I don't think he's a troll because he disagrees with me; I think he's a troll because he insists on debating in bad faith, keeps recycling refuted arguments, and generally seems to be flinging everything he can -- including pulling imaginary, magical "whatever" forces out of his ass -- to create FUD around this issue. I've seen several people register who couldn't even get past the handshake stage before getting booted because they were suspected trolls, with much less evidence to go on than we have here with bongo. So it's not as if I'm the only one around here who has very specific ideas about who does and does not belong here. But my opinion on this issue doesn't matter, since I'm not an admin.

aa5 » October 10th, 2016, 5:01 am wrote:It is also a great question, where does this energy come from. We know the attractive force as gravity. And we think of it is a property of matter, although why/how this works I do not know. The repulsive force we can call anti-gravity, and it may be some property of matter too.

To follow-up on VexMan's comment about charge. Miles uses the word "charge" or "the charge field" but in his usage it means something a bit difference than what we're used to when we think of charge. In this case the charge field is made up of tiny photons with real mass and physical extension, which are constantly being recycled through and emitted from matter at all times. He has written a paper specifically about the moon: http://milesmathis.com/moon.html

Here are two papers expanding on the ideas in that paper to develop his unified field theory that basically shows how Newton's gravitational equation is actual made up of two compound fields or forces (gravity pushing in, charge emission pushing out): http://milesmathis.com/uft.html What this means is that what we feel and measure as the force of gravity is actually the compound of these two forces.

In this paper he shows what the value of G (the gravitational constant) represents and why it has the value that it does. Nobody else has ever done that in the history of physics:http://milesmathis.com/g.html

And finally, since you mentioned anti-gravity, here is his paper on that question discussing the Allais effect and Podkletnov's work, among others: http://milesmathis.com/allais.html

Last edited by daddie_o on October 10th, 2016, 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Seneca » October 9th, 2016, 10:52 pm wrote: As for your last comment to bongostaple that he is wrong, I understand that you don't mean that you are automatically right. But that you are still open for the possibility that you are both wrong.

Yes, since every argument he has brought forward has been refuted (by you as well) and he has nothing more of substance to offer other than a stubborn insistence that magical 'whatever' forces are slowing the ball down, it is clear that he is not right. But I am still open to the possibility that Miles might be wrong and would also like to see more experiments for direct confirmation. But I am very confident he's not.

I have to admit your last answer is beyond my comprehension. .... I don't see how a circle or any line can be a length (in the physical sense). For me a length is just a combination of a number and a unit of length like a centimeter. It is true that a length has one dimension. A circle can have a length but I don't see how it could be a length.

I can see your confusion, but in this case I think it is more or less a distinction without a difference. You can say it 'has a length' if you want. You should read the whole paper since the lead-in to that paragraph might help it make sense. It's a pretty short paper (just over 3,000 words): http://milesmathis.com/pi.html

He is calling it "a length" because it is a line that only has one dimension, which is its length. So he's calling attention to that single dimension. The point is to realize that when we measure the length of a given circle, we treat the length of its circumference the same way we treat the length of a straight line. We can tie a string around the circle, cut the string, lay it out straight, and measure its length. (Or use a measuring tape, which is much the same thing.) In doing so, we are treating the circle as if it had only one dimension (length) like a line. But in physics and geometry, we don't just have free space. We have Cartesian graphs with X, Y, Z, etc. axes. In that formalized space, we can no longer treat the circle as if it only had one dimension like a line (i.e., what he is calling a length). No, the circle has two dimensions, and it will always have one more dimension than a straight line, even after time is added in. One way to gloss his argument (without doing justice to it) is that the current formula for calculating distance traveled around a circle treats the circumference like a straight line (as if they both had the same number of dimensions).

daddie_o » 09 Oct 2016, 20:32 wrote:But I have more faith in you, I liked your Gandhi paper for example. And if I saw that you had run the experiment and proven you were right, in order to keep my promise I would be motivated to run it myself.

Seneca » October 8th, 2016, 1:26 pm wrote:daddie_o, Vexman, if you are so sure you are right, couldn't you do this simple, inexpensive experiment? You have to admit the proof would be more overwhelming. You wouldn't have to use terms like "exactly as" to describe it (when other people see it is not exactly at the same time).

Seneca » 08 Oct 2016, 09:33 wrote:That makes sense. But the problem is that M.M. is talking about physics, not about maths. That is why I still think these experiments are useful. To decide if we are "zigzagging" or not when we are running in circles. Edit:A simple experiment would be the following. It is similar but simpler than the one posted on youtube. You only need one tube and one ball. Instead of a circle(spiral) you make only half a circle followed by a straight part. Like the letter U. At the end of the turn you measure a short length (=l) and mark both the end and the beginning. So you can time how much time the ball needs to cover the distance= time A. You do the same thing at the start of the straight part after the turn. Using exactly the same length. Here you can measure time B.

I would predict B>A. Because the further the ball has travelled the more it will have slowed down because of friction. But the difference will be small (depending on l)

M.M. would predict that A>B. Because according to him the ball has to cover more "distance" during A. This difference would be about 21%. A bit less because the ball will have slowed down at the end of A because of friction (depending on l)

Seneca, I was thinking about your suggested setup of the new experiment. For the most part I like it even more than Oostdijk's setup since it would represent a smaller version of the actual running track as in athletics.

What bothers me is just the fact that friction on the long run stops the ball. So which ever would be the first that the ball would enter into (curve or straight path), in the long run - ball's velocity is diminishing and therefore ball's exiting velocity (either at the end of the curve or straight part) is not matched to its entering velocity due to simple friction acting on the ball in motion. Solution to this would be (in extreme) to make the track/path as short as possible so that there would be not much velocity loss, but then again it would be absurdly short measurement of timing that would be problematic. To exclude the friction dilemma completely, we'd need a) vacuum tube and b) magnetic levitation instead of ball touching the tube (as seen is MAGLEV trains). Only then could we say the balls moves with constant velocity either at the start or end of curve/straight path. This is the problem common to your setup's idea as in Oostidjk's setup.

In my opinion it would still be better to keep Oostdijk's setup with two parallel paths, one being curved and the other being straight. My preference is based on fact, that with two parallel tubes one is able to observe 2 balls rolling simultaneously, one through the curve as the other is on only the straight path. In this way it is much more comprehendable to notice the same time needed for the balls to finish their different paths, it shows the point instantly, without any post-festum video analysis. What should be improved with Oostdijk's setup is firstly releasing the balls at the truly simultaneous moment (maybe with some electronic device such as magnetic barrier that would got removed and would release both balls at the exactly same micro second). As second, I'd like to think that we can propel the balls with i.e. constant air flow directed into both tubes that would be again – as close to perfectly matched value of air-flow in both tubes. Maybe water could replace the air as a force pushing the balls at equal velocity through the tubes. In both versions, we could be in better control of starting and finishing velocity and thus excluding the friction dilemma or dilemma with inclinations / acceleration needed to roll the balls at start. How to do it properly and how to make the setup so that the air/water flow to be perfectly matched is a challenge I'm thinking about.

I still believe though, that your setup would be just perfect to show the same result as Oostdijk's already demonstrated. And similar to daddie_o, I believe that even if we did it as per your setup suggestion, the same point would still be objected.

Vexman, I understand your reasons but I think in "my" experiment friction wouldn't influence the conclusion of the experiment. Because the straight part that is being measured (B) comes always after the bend (A). Any slowdown because of friction happening at A will automatically lead to an even slower ball at B. So no amount of friction can make time A>time B.In order words: Miles Mathis predicts an apparent speed-up of 21% precisely at the end of the curve and the beginning of the straight part. And this is what we are trying to prove or disprove here. He would call it "apparent" because the speed-up is only observed if you measure the distance using the "wrong pi" (3.14..) as we are doing in this experiment. It would not be observed from the viewpoint of the ball. I hope you can follow me. If we see that there is a speed-up, there is no way this can be caused by friction so it would prove M.M. is right. If we see no speed-up that would prove M.M. is wrong. I don't see how you could argue that there is a speed-up but you can't see it because of friction. Daddie_o, what do you think?